See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/26496151

Quality of Life and its Components’ Measurement

Article  in  Engineering Economics · January 2007

Source: DOAJ

CITATIONS READS

37 23,360

2 authors, including:

Juozas Ruzevicius
Vilnius University
56 PUBLICATIONS   332 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rimantas Zajarskas View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Juozas Ruzevicius on 25 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Quality of Life and of Working Life:
Conceptions and Research

Juozas Ruževičius
Vilnius University (Lithuania)
e-mail: juozas.ruzevicius@ef.vu.lt

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to define the conception of quality of life and its components, to
prepare a model of quality of life, and to present the quality of working life evaluation in an
organisation after corrective actions in the work environment. The results of the research into
the work-family conflict and the balance of work and personal life study are also presented in
the article. This paper follows the analysis of scientific and methodological literature, the
methodology of social research and a case study. A model of quality of life was designed,
which includes eight domains of quality of life and their factors. This model was used to
study the quality of working life in one particular company. The quality of working life could
be defined as the synthesis of workplace strategies, processes, and environment, which
together stimulate the employee’s job satisfaction. This also depends on working conditions
and the organisation’s efficiency. The concept of the quality of working life encompasses the
following factors: job satisfaction, involvement in performance at work, motivation,
efficiency, productivity, health, safety and welfare at work, stress, work load, burnout, etc.
The research findings show that the quality of working life can be measured, improved, and
managed. An organisation has possibilities to increase its employee’s quality of life and
loyalty by improving the working conditions and environment. The high value of the quality
of working life directly influences the higher quality of life. Quality of life, happiness, life
satisfaction and subjective well-being are interrelated. The new integrated indicator “Total
quality of life” (TQL) is proposed by the author, and the world’s top 10 cities measured by
TQL are also presented in the article.

Keywords
management; quality of life; quality of working life; total quality of life; balance of work and
personal life; indicator; model

17th Toulon-Verona International Conference Liverpool John Moores University

Excellence in Services 317 Liverpool (England)
Conference Proceedings ISBN 9788890432743 August 28-29, 2014
Introduction

The paper analyses quality of life (French – Qualité de vie; German – Qualität des Lebens).
It is defined as a concept of economics, sociology and political science which encompasses an
individual’s spiritual (emotional), social and physical well-being. This concept originated in
Western Europe in the middle of the 20th century when attempts were made to identify the
correlation of society’s traditional material interests and newly evolved needs as compared to
the potential of society. The conception of quality of life conflicts with excess profits of
monopolies and reckless profit accumulation. Sustainable development (this concept
comprises the methods which strive to assure the development in the way that meets people's
well-being at present and at the same time does not reduce it in future) refers to quality of life
too. The aim of this conception is to mitigate poverty, to fix meaningful life standards (quality
of life), to meet the individual’s basic needs, to stimulate economic growth and political
development, to avoid damage to natural resources (Akranavičiūtė & Ruževičius, 2007;
Ruževičius, 2012). Attempts to answer the question concerning quality of life are found in
ancient myths, religions and philosophy. Ancient Greek philosophers were looking for
meaning of life and guidelines that could have helped to achieve a higher level of existence.
The concept of “good life” is analysed in Plato’s and Aristotle’s works but their theories are
different. The highest value for Plato was logically based contemplation which excelled
human feelings. Aristotle’s view was different; he declared that life without feelings even if it
involved risk was useless. Modern health concepts are based on the views of these two great
philosophers: “Health is not absence of a disease but absolute physical, psychological and
social well-being” (this reminds Plato) and other modern theories claim that risk, stress are
natural parts of life. This theory reminds Aristotle’s concept of “good life” (Akranavičiūtė &
Ruževičius, 2007).
The concept “quality of life” was first used by A. C. Pigou in his book about economic
well-being in 1920. There was no reaction to this and it was ignored until the end of World
War II. At that time The World Health Organization (WHO) expanded the definition of health
and included the concepts of physical, psychological and social well-being. The WHO defines
quality of life (QOL) as an individual purpose-aligned cultural and value system by which a
person lives, relative to their aims, hopes, living standards and interests. This is a detailed
concept which incorporates individuals' physical and psychological health, their degree of
independence, their social liaisons and how they relate to their surroundings. Quality of life is
an area of study that has attracted an ever increasing amount of interest. Quality of life
conceptual models and instruments for research, evaluation and assessment have been
developed since the middle of last century (McCall, 2005; Ruževičius, 2012). However,
Greek philosophers were searching for meaning of life which could help people pursue a
higher existential level of their life. In the past century quality of life was determined as
material welfare or wealth. Later, the perception’s changes of the meaning of life and values
influenced quality of life conception and all factors changes (Ferrer, 2002). Evaluation of
quality of life must encompass all elements. The quality of working life is an important
component quality of life. This aspect of quality of life has never been analysed in scientific
literature. The quality of working life includes such work areas as employees’ health and
well-being, guarantee for employment, career planning, competence development, life and
work balance, and others. The results of evaluation of quality of working life factors could be
possibility for social programs establishment, implementation and development in
organisations, at national or international levels (Akranavičiūtė & Ruževičius, 2007; Brown et
al., 2004; Ruževičius, 2012; Van de Looij, 1995).
The scientific problem of the study is to adjust evaluation method on the quality of
working life (QOWL) and consequently improve an organisation’s performance results. The

318
purpose of the paper is to prepare a model of quality of life, to study the balance of work and
personal life and to evaluate changes of employees’ quality of working life after corrective
measures in the organisation under research. Methodology. This article is worked out by using
the analysis of scientific and methodological literature and the methodology of social
research. The research data was analysed using descriptive and statistical methods. The data
analysis was performed using standard questionnaire data treatment software: Microsoft Excel
2000 and SPSS (SPSS 15.0 for Windows Evaluation) packets. The research sample comprises
all the employees (50) of a small industrial organisation. The results of the research carried
out in 2006 were published in the article (Akranavičiūtė & Ruževičius, 2007). Referring to the
mentioned research, measures of work environment corrective measures were prepared and
implemented in the organisation. A few years later, at the beginning of 2014, the author
carried out research from the point of view of QOWL concerning the efficacy of applied
measures.

1. The factors, dimensions and the model of quality of life

The main problem is that there is no universal quality of life determination. Quality of life
is influenced by an individual’s physical and mental health, the degree of independency, the
social relationship with the environment, and other factors (Ruževičius, 2012; Shin, 1979).
Quality of life could be defined as an individual’s satisfaction with his or her life dimensions
comparing with his or her ideal life. The evaluation of quality of life depends on the
individual’s value system and on the cultural environment where he lives (Gilgeous, 1998).
Nonetheless, when analysing quality of life, it should be kept in mind that this concept is
wider than the issues of an individual’s health. Brown (1993) observes that from both political
and philosophical perspectives, the perception of quality of life can be based on one of the
following three points of view (quoted from Diener et al., 1997):
- The characteristics of good life can stem from normative ideals based on religious,
philosophical or some other systems. For instance, an individual can be positive that the
essential element of quality of life is helping other people – based on one’s religious
principles.
- The essence of quality of life lies in the fulfilment of the individual’s priority needs. Due to
scarce resources, people prefer things that enhance the quality of their lives. Therefore,
people organise their lives considering the resources available to them, as well as their
personal needs.
- Quality of life can also be perceived through an individual’s life experience. If a person
perceives her or his life as good and desirable, it is possible to assume that it is indeed so in
her or his case. From such a point of view, the core criteria for the evaluation of quality of
life are joy, pleasure and contentment with life.
According to B. K. Haas (1999), quality of life can be most accurately defined by the
following five criteria (quoted from Merkys et al., 2008):
- Quality of life is the assessment of the current (here and now) circumstances of an
individual’s life.
- Quality of life in its essence (content) is multifaceted.
- Quality of life is based on individual values, and is variable.
- Quality of life encompasses objective indicators as well as subjective evaluations.
- Quality of life can be most accurately evaluated by individuals who are capable of
conducting subjective self-assessment.
Quality of life is considered to be a construct which encompasses various tiers of the
realization of social welfare – the macro-layer (social layer), i.e., general social conditions and

319
prerequisites; the communal (municipal) layer, i.e., specific opportunities, the infrastructure
and the quality of services; the tier of the individual, i.e., the actual exploitation of social
resources; as well as the assessment of subjective opportunities and contentment from the
perspective of personal experience (Merkys et al., 2008). It must be noted that all these layers
are interrelated – society or community life cannot be considered to be that of quality if the
experiences of individuals are not positive. On the other hand, the high quality of municipal
life is not to be considered as the sum of those experiences at the layer of the individual (The
Economist..., 2005). Therefore, in order to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of quality of
life, all the three layers of the realization of social welfare must be taken into consideration.
The concepts of quality of life and happiness cannot be equated, as people perceive their
content, characteristics and indicators differently (Susnienė & Jurkauskas, 2009). This is how
French poet and thinker Nicolas Chamfort defined the issue of happiness:
“Le bonheur n’est pas chose aisée. Il est très difficile de le trouver en nous, il est
impossible de le trouver ailleurs” - “Happiness is not easy to find. It's very difficult to find it
in yourself and impossible to find anywhere else”.
While analysing sustainable development, the conceptual model of sustainable
development elaborated by C. Price et al. (1997) must be mentioned; it is argued that health
and eco-balance are essential indicators of quality of life, and are perceived as the result of the
interaction of economic, environmental, and social values (Dooris, 1999). In essence, this
model points to the fact that when speaking about quality of life, it is not possible to ignore
either the subjective or objective element of quality because they are both essential to the all-
embracing perception of this conception. According to this model, the indicators of the
objective quality of life are the individual assessment elements of the wholeness of the
environmental and economic situation; whereas the subjective component should be related to
individual social values (see Figure 1).
R. Veenhoven distinguishes four dimensions of quality of life which are necessary for the
fulfilment of a good quality of life (Veenhoven, 2000):
- “Livability” of the environment. This dimension includes the opportunities provided by the
environment, as well as the possibility of establishing social relations.
- Self-assessment, which encompasses the awareness and perception of one’s own personal
characteristics, as well as strengths and weaknesses.
- External benefit. Quality of life depends also on whether the individual has a life goal or
goals, and on whether s/he pursues higher values.
- “Inner appreciation” of quality of life. Every individual evaluates the quality of her or his
life subjectively while comparing the acquired experience and expectations of life.

Figure 1. A conceptual model of health and sustainable development

Source: Price et al., 1997; quoted from Dooris, 1999

320
 It must also be noted that quality of life depends not only on the person’s age and state of
health, but also on the person’s emotional condition, and cognitive, as well as social
functioning (Arnold, 1991; quoted from Brown et al., 2004). The findings of the research,
which involved the entire population of Norway, demonstrated that the older part of the
population highlighted the assessment of physical condition; women evaluated quality of life
worse than men did; family status had the greatest impact on the emotional area of life,
whereas education – affected all areas related to quality of life (Kazlauskaitė & Rėklaitienė,
2005).
Quality of life also depends on external factors. Good living conditions or circumstances
will determine high quality of life, but if these conditions vary, the individual’s satisfaction
with his or her quality of life will vary too. Quality of life is influenced by many various
factors and conditions, such as: accommodation, employment, income, material welfare,
moral attitudes, personal and family life, social support, stress and crises, health-related
quality of life, health care service, working conditions, nourishment, education opportunities,
relationships with the environment, eco-factors, and others. The author’s proposed model of
quality of life is presented in Figure 2.
The domains of quality of life are (Ruževičius, 2012):
1. Physical state (health, working load, stamina, nourishment);
2. Material state (welfare, living conditions, economics quality; average income,
purchasing power, work and recreation conditions, etc.);
3. Psychological state (emotions, attitudes, values, self-esteem, job satisfaction, stress;
moral psychological climate within the family, an organisation, the community, the
nation);
4. Education and self-development (learning, education quality, skills and application of
knowledge)
5. Social relation (relationship with people, family, society, support);
6. Self-expression possibilities and leisure (recreation, hobby, creation, entertainment);
7. Safety and environment (physical personal security – body, legal, social; work
environment, economic, political, juridical environment).

2. Quality of life in cities

It is possible to evaluate quality of life of an individual (a person), as well as quality of life
and the eco-quality of life of communities, cities, countries, or whole regions. In order to
evaluate and compare people's quality of life in different countries general indicators are
employed that evaluate the aspects of economical, socio-cultural, political environment,
services of health care, education, transport, public sector as well as supply of products and
services, aspects of natural conditions. Quality of life is identified according to nine main
indicators. They are ranked according to the importance:
1) material welfare (according to GNP);
2) health;
3) political stability and safety;
4) family life;
5) social life;
6) climate and geographical location;
7) employment;
8) political freedom;
9) gender freedom.

321
Figure 2. The quality of life model

Physical Material
state state

Health Psichologi-
Security cal state
related
quality of life
Environ- Material
ment related aspects of
quality of life quality of
life

Self-
Quality of
QUALI- spiritual and
development
Enviro- Quality of
leisure
TY OF psychological
nment life
LIFE

Quality of
Quality of working Education
social life Quality of life
life in the
family
Leisure

Social
Self- relationship
expression

Source: designed by the author, following Considine, 2002; Shoepke, 2003; Ruževičius, 2012

The consultancy company Mercer Human Research conducts systematic evaluations of

quality of life in various cities worldwide. The evaluation encompasses 39 criteria of quality
of life. European cities overwhelmingly top the list. Thus, the top 10 cities ranked by Mercer
in 2012 on the basis of quality of life include (Quality, 2012):
1. Vienna (Austria).
2. Zurich (Switzerland).
3. Auckland (New Zealand).
4. Munich (Germany).
5. Vancouver (Canada).
6. Dusseldorf (Germany).
7. Frankfurt (Germany).
8. Geneva (Switzerland).
9. Copenhagen (Denmark).
10. Bern (Switzerland).
According to this ranking, the following cities take these positions: Vilnius – 79; Brussels
– 22; Paris – 29; Helsinki – 32; Oslo – 32; London – 38; Rome – 52; Warsaw – 64; Prague –

322
69. Tbilisi ranked 213 - the lowest position among the Eastern European cities. Baghdad
(Iraq) ranked 221 - the worst city in the whole world from the perspective of quality of life.
The eco-quality in cities worldwide is also ranked, and reflects several environmental
indicators. In 2010, Calgary (Canada) was ranked the best eco-city in the world; Honolulu
(the USA) came second; Ottawa (Canada) and Helsinki (Finland) took joint third positions
(Top, 2010) The author of the present article proposes a new indicator – the indicator of the
total quality of life, which integrates the Mercer indicator of quality of life in cities, as well as
the indicator of eco-quality (Ruževičius, 2012). From the perspective of the indicator of the
total quality of life, the top city in the world should be Auckland (New Zealand) (third
according to quality of life, and thirteenth on the basis of eco-quality). From the viewpoint of
this indicator, the top 10 cities in the world would be ranked as follows:
1. Auckland (New Zealand) (3+13=16).
2. Copenhagen (Denmark) (17).
2. Ottawa (Canada) (17).
3. Vancouver (Canada) (18).
3. Wellington (New Zealand) (18).
6. Zurich (Switzerland) (21).
7. Bern (Switzerland) (23).
8. Stockholm (Sweden) (28).
9. Helsinki (Finland) (35)
10. Montreal (Canada) (36).

3. The concept, specificity of the evaluation, and the ways of enhancement of quality of
working life

The quality of working life (QWL), according to the English researcher G. James, can be
defined from three different perspectives:
1. QWL is a target (e.g., to improve the working place, make the working environment more
comfortable, etc.);
2. QWL is a process (it combines the needs of the employees and the goals of the
organisation);
3. QWL is a philosophy (the individual is valued as an asset that can be nurtured through
knowledge, experience, etc.) (James, 1992).
QWL should be analysed as related to the total quality of life. Therefore, it is of
paramount importance to establish their correlation. The quality of working life is one of the
dimensions which comprise the composition of the total quality of life. In turn, the quality of
working life is interrelated with and inseparable from other areas of QL in multiple ways,
such as the individual’s social life, education, development, and opportunities for self-
realization, material welfare, etc. A visual model of this interrelationship is presented in
Figure 2.
The quality of working life can be defined as synthesis of work place strategies, processes
and environment, which stimulates employee’s job satisfaction. It also depends on work
conditions and the efficiency of the organisation (Considine, 2002). An individual’s quality of
working life directly influences the quality of his or her life value. Generally, quality of life is
also determined as an employee’s and his or her work environment’s relationship quality
(Kajzar & Kozubkova, 2007; Ruževičius, 2012; Schoepke, 2003). All the components of
quality of life are interdependent and influence an individual’s satisfaction with the quality of
his or her life.

323
 The concept of quality of working life encompass the following factors: job satisfaction,
involvement in work performance, motivation, efficiency, productivity, health, safety and
welfare at work, stress, work load, burn-out, etc. These mentioned factors can be defined as
physical and psychological results of work which affect the employee (Arts, 2001). Other
authors suggest to involve in this concept more work factors: fair compensation, safe and
hygienic working and psychological conditions, knowledge and opportunities to realise one’s
skills, social integration and relationship, life and work balance, work planning and
organisation (Van de Looij, 1995). Some quality of working life factors are the same as in
quality of life, but they are related with the employee’s working environment and his or her
job.
The quality of working life domains and factors are as follows:
1. Consideration of work (material and non-material);
2. Emotional state (appreciation, esteem, stress, self-motivation, job satisfaction, safety
for job);
3. Learning and improvement (career opportunities, acquisition of new knowledge and
skills);
4. Social relationship in the organisation (“relations” with colleagues and supervisors,
delegation, communication, command, division of work);
5. Self-realization (career opportunities, involvement in decisions making, etc.);
6. Physical state (stress, fatigue, burn-out, work load);
7. Safety and work environment (Gilgeous, 1998; Arts, 2001; Juniper, 2002; Schoepke,
2003; Ruževičius, 2012).

3.1. Quality of working life evaluation – case study.

A continuous study of quality of life (QOL) and of QWL at a small industrial organisation
in Lithuania was performed in 2006-2014. The research sample comprises all the employees
(50) of this enterprise. Quality of life must be measured by subjective and objective criteria.
Objective criteria can be measured, counted, monitored, whereas subjective criteria of quality
of life exist in the individual’s consciousness, and researchers are able to identify them only
from the individual’s responses. Comprehensive research must involve both criteria (Juniper,
2002). Work and working environment directly influence employee’s quality of working life.
A high level of quality of working life (QWL) induces the employee’s loyalty to the
organisation and a decision to work in it (Ruževičius, 2012). Quality of working life has more
than one research methodology and model. Quality of life and quality of working life are
measured according to subjective and objective criteria. The study must provide answers to
the following answers: how important particular factors of quality of life are for an individual
and how an individual is satisfied with these factors. Dissatisfaction in one domain of quality
of life may not influence individual’s quality of life in general, if only this domain is less
significant than other life domains. Conversely, when the factors of quality of life are
evaluated as significantly worse, this works against the general level of quality of life
(Akranavičiūtė & Ruževičius, 2007). Quality of life domains are set hierarchically in a
person’s consciousness. The general quality of life is at the top and all domains of quality of
life are situated subject to individual (Sirgy, 2001). Greater satisfaction in one domain
increases the level of satisfaction in the domain above. For example, high quality of working
life increases the general quality of life. However, dissatisfaction in one quality of life domain
may have no influence on other domains. If a person is dissatisfied with his work he will
compensate it with paying more attention to the family and social relationship. The author
suggests to measure quality of life using following formula:

QOL = a x Sph + b x Sm + c x Se + d x Ss + e x Si + f x Sl + g x Sse (1).

324
QOL – quality of life value, Sph - physical state value, Sm – material state value, Se -
emotional state value, Ss - social relationship value, Si - self-development value, Sl - self-
expression and leisure value, Sse – safety and environment value, a-g – quality of life
domains weight coefficients (sum total is 1). (Shin, 1979; Sirgy, 2001; Scoring..., 2001).
Quality of working life value is calculated similarly.
A study questionnaire was designed according to factors mentioned above. The first
section of the questionnaire aimed to find out the most important life domains for the
respondents (physical state, material state, emotional state, social relationship, education and
self-improvement, self-expression and leisure, safety and environment). The weight
coefficients were given to these domains according to the responses. Quality of life value was
derived through simple means of the seven life domains values. The total score of quality of
working life was obtained in the same way. The questionnaire consists of 19 items concerning
quality of life and 21 items about quality of working life. The 5-point Likert response format
was used, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Total scores reflect higher
degrees of quality of life and quality of working life. In the second section of the
questionnaire, demographic-social questions were used to collect the information about
respondents’ characteristics, including: age, gender, education and income.
The study can approve the designed research method and evaluate the organisation’s
employees’ quality of life and quality of working life. After analysis of the responses, the
weight coefficients of quality of life and quality of working life domains were determined:
QOL = 0,3 x Sph + 0,2 x Se + 0,18 x Sm + 0,12 x Si + 0,1 x Ss + 0,05 x Sl + 0,05 x Sse (2)
The domains of quality of life have the same weight coefficients.
The results showed that the surveyed employees were most satisfied with two domains,
i.e. social relationship (average evaluation is 4.0 points) and education and self-development
(3.8 points) out of seven quality of life domains. The higher evaluation of quality of working
life domains accrued also to education and self-improvement domain (3.6 points) and to self-
expression and leisure domain (3.5 points). The respondents were dissatisfied with their
material state (2.4 and 2.8 points) (see Fig. 3), especially with their material income,
compensation of work and living conditions. These findings might be attributed to the facts
that most employees have higher education, but they receive an average payment. The
employees’ expectations of fair compensation did not match with the real situation.
Figure 3. Evaluation of quality of life and quality of working life domains

5
4,5
4
3,5
3
Satisfaction level

2,5
2
1,5 QOL, 2006
1 QWL, 2006
0,5
QWL, 2014
0
Physical

Material

Environment
Emotional state

Social state 

expression 
development 

and leisure 

and safety  
state  

state 

Education
and self‐

Self‐

Domains of life

Source: 2014 – author own study and calculation; 2006 – Akranavičiūtė, Ruževičius, 2007

325
 Many respondents pointed out that they were dissatisfied with their career opportunities
and work related stress. The quality of life of males was higher than the quality of working
life (QOL is 3.5 points; QOWL – 3.2 points) than that of females (QOL – 3.3 points; QOWL
– 3.3 points). An exhaustive study will point out the reasons of these evaluations.
The strength of correlation between quality of life and quality of working life, their
domains and demographic-social characteristics were analysed. A strong correlation was
found between quality of life and quality of working life (r = 0.76). However, the employees'
demographic - social characteristics weakly correlated with both quality of life and quality of
working life (r varies from –0.79 to 0.39). Very positive correlation was found between
quality of life and its domains: physical state (r = 0.84) and material state (r = 0.71). The
weakest correlation was found between quality of life and education and self-improvement
domain (r = 0.48), as well as safety and environment domain (r = 0.48). The results revealed
that quality of working life moderately correlated with material state (r = 0.66) and education
and self-development domain (r = 0.66). The remaining domains were also moderately
related. The regression analysis was used to predict the value of quality of life based on
quality of working life value. The dependent variable (quality of life) was significantly
associated with quality of working life (R = 0,758; R² = 0,574; R² adj = 0,563). Linear
equation was found:
QOL = 0.74 + 0.85 x QWL (3) (Akranavičiūtė & Ruževičius, 2007).
On the basis of the results of the research in the organisation, corrective measures and
measures for work environment were prepared and implemented. They involved training of
employees, their professional development and substantial improvement of the conditions of
work environment referring the occupational health and safety management system (OHSAS)
requirements. A repeated research was performed a few years later (2014), and focused on
implementation of the above mentioned measures. The research demonstrated high efficiency
of the applied measures concerning the improvement of QWL (see Fig. 3). Although the
material state of the employees hadn’t changed significantly, the above mentioned measures
significantly improved the employees’ emotional state, education and self-development as
well as assessment of safety. This has positive impact not only on general QWL evaluation,
but on the QOL level as well. The research findings showed that analysed organisation has
possibilities to increase their employee’s satisfaction of quality of life and loyalty by
improving the working conditions and environment. High quality of working life evaluation
can influence higher quality of life in general. The author of this study concludes that quality
of working life can be managed, measured and evaluated.

3.2. The work-family conflict and the balance of work and personal life
Having analysed the concept of quality of life and its correlation with the quality of
working life, and also having reviewed the factors that have an impact on QWL, it is possible
– from both the theoretical and practical points of view – to analyse the relevant aspects of the
balance of work and personal life; such research would be most natural in the context of
work-family conflicts. Work and family are the two pivotal areas in our lives, however, very
often people encounter great difficulties while seeking to combine them in such a way that
neither of them suffers.
It is especially difficult to combine work and family life for those who have certain
commitments, e.g. for those who are raising minors, caring for the elderly, or are taking care
of the disabled. The work-family conflict is a discrepancy between certain social roles: of
employee, bread-winner, custodian, as well as father, mother or spouse (Rode et al., 2007).
Apart from its self-explanatory meaning, the balance of work and personal life – i.e.
combining professional and family life – encompasses certain other aspects. In his article, F.

326
Pichler mentions the concept of the balance of work and personal life suggested by U. Byrne
(2005). It is like juggling the five aspects of our life: work, family, friends, health, and the
spiritual condition, in order for the activity and aspirations in one area not to have a
detrimental impact on the remaining four areas (Pichler, 2009). This list, however, can be
expanded to include leisure time, cultural entertainment, and the maintenance of ties with
relatives, other favourite activities, hobbies, etc.
J. C. Rode analysed the conflict of work and family as a root cause of leaving one’s job.
The model itself was called the “intent to quit” (Rode, 2007). Figure 4 demonstrates that the
conflict of work and family life is actually comprised of two conflicts, depending on whose
perspective is taken. It is two trends of those two conflicts. The work-to-family conflict reveals
how strongly working conditions impact and restrict the individual’s family life; as well as
how often family life has to be adjusted to the working conditions. Alternatively, the family-
to-work conflict reveals how family commitments affect the quality of the duties performed at
work (Pichler, 2009).

Figure 4. The model of “the Intent to quit”

Source: Rode, 2007

According to the intent to quit model, the work-to-family conflict has a negative impact on
one’s job satisfaction (and concurrently on one’s contentment with life), which means that the
working conditions do not make it possible to properly carry out the family commitments.
Therefore, the individual is dissatisfied his or her job, and at the same time, with such a life in
general. Similarly, a distinct family-to-work conflict leads to the individual’s discontent with
one’s life (and with his or her job as well). Conversely, job satisfaction has a positive impact
on one’s general contentment with life: a person who is content with her/his job (i.e. does not
experience conflicts of roles or only experiences minor ones) is satisfied with her or his own
life as well. This leads to the conclusion that if one is satisfied with one’s job and life, the
intent to quit should not be harboured. Conversely, the individual who is dissatisfied with his
or her job and life will strive to change something.
Research on the evaluation on the balance of working life and personal life among
freelance and office staff. Rasa Braškutė-Saulė – a master student in Vilnius University –
participated also in this research. The analysis of the scientific literature on the concept of the
quality of working life (QWL) and on the factors which have an impact on the quality
revealed that the aspect of the balance of work and personal life (further BWPL) is extremely
relevant from both the theoretical and practical points of view. It is obviously of paramount
importance to absolutely every working person, starting with CEOs to rank-and-file workers,
to representatives of various non-traditional specialities.
The analysis of the scientific literature leads to several insights. Firstly, the balance of
work and personal life is becoming more expensive. This rise in price must be different for
individuals who have well-paid jobs in stable businesses or structures, and who can afford not
to search for additional jobs or can afford not to shorten (officially or not) their work days, for

327
instance, on Fridays; these employees, after all, are not pressed by the necessity to work at
home or in the evening. On the other hand, those who do not have fixed or stable jobs, or who
have inadequate income, or those whose income significantly depends on their performance
an results at work would probably sacrifice their personal time for extra income; such workers
would more often resort to taking on additional jobs, or would do overtime if this resulted in
extra income. These premises are based on two factors – the nature of work and income.
Another insight is that the balance of work and personal life, in general, is the balance of two
aspects of worth – work and personal life. A job, in essence, provides the contemporary
individual with the financial opportunities to experience a true personal life, and to enjoy it. It
should follow from this that when there is excessive ‘free’ time for one’s personal life, the
employee is not necessarily content because this can simply mean that one does not have
sufficient work and income to live that personal life adequately. This problem is usually
experienced by most individuals who work in the field of projects or in creative fields, and
who do not have a fixed long-term contract. Thus, the above premises are also based on the
same factors – the nature of work and income. In order to assess the evaluations of the
balance of work and personal life (BWPL), some research was carried out through in-depth
interviews. The research included two target groups: the first group consisted of individuals
working in creative fields (freelancers), while the other was made up of full-time employees
working “from 8.00 until 17.00”, referred to below as office workers. The first group under
research consisted of actors, photographers, and designers. The category of office staff was
comprised of managers, and representatives of senior management (i.e. those who, in the
entry on profession noted their position as ‘manager’ or ‘head of department’).
Fragments of the research findings are presented below. The correlation of the frequency
of working overtime and satisfaction with BWPL (the balance of work and personal life) is
presented in Figure 5.
Figure 5. The correlation between the satisfaction with BWPL and the frequency of working overtime

The research findings disclosed the obvious discrepancy between the frequency of working
overtime and the freelancers’ and office workers’ satisfaction with the BWPL. Figure 5
presents only the data concerning the respondents who were satisfied (or more satisfied than
not) with the balance of work and personal life. The discrepancy is most obvious within the
‘intersection’, which emerges in the overtime evaluation zones ‘seldom’ and ‘often’. The
largest part of the freelancers who were satisfied with the balance (60.6%) often do overtime,
which exceeds the number of respondents who seldom do overtime by more than twice.
Conversely, the office employees showed the opposite tendency. The majority of those
satisfied with the balance of work and their personal life (48.6%) claim that they seldom that
they do overtime, which accounts for more than the office staff who often do overtime. It is

328
possible to make the assumption that freelancers – even though they have obviously less time
for personal life due to overtime – are as satisfied with their personal lives as office workers,
who do overtime less frequently.
The personal life of freelancers who are satisfied with their BWPL suffers due to work
more than the personal life of office employees (see Fig. 6). In turn, the office workers – more
often than the freelancers – pointed out that their personal life either does not suffer at all due
to work or is more inclined not to suffer than to suffer. In the context of the pivotal question
of the research on whether the respondents are satisfied with their BWPL – both the
freelancers and office staff claimed that they were satisfied with their BWPL. Nevertheless,
when the respondents were asked whether their personal life suffered due to work, the
freelancers’ and office workers’ responses differed significantly; as did the responses
concerning the frequency of overtime. Therefore, it is obvious that the evaluation of the
balance of work and personal life by those two research target groups is subjective and
specific to the character of their work. This, however, does not mean that the BWPL of
freelancers and office workers is in essence similar. In other words, even though both groups
evaluated their BWPL as similar – they are content with it in general – the balance of work
and personal life is not identical (or even similar) when both those groups are viewed
separately. Figure 6 demonstrates obvious differences between the office workers and
freelancers, which is visually reflected in the ‘intersection’ in the zones of evaluation of
personal life.
Figure 16. The correlation of satisfaction with the BWPL, and the responses to the question whether
personal life suffers due to work

In general, the most significant correlation was observed between the nature of work and
the need to do extra jobs in order to receive extra income. The freelancers especially stood out
with 72% taking on extra work in order to gain additional income. This demonstrates that it is
income that can be considered the core and distinctive factor which impacts the balance of
work and personal life in the context of the different nature of work. As mentioned earlier, the
findings of the research revealed that when compared to the office workers, the freelancers
stood out as both more likely to be lacking in income and actively undertaking additional jobs
– and thus sacrificing the time which could be dedicated to their personal life, which distinctly
distorts the balance of both work and personal life.
The evaluation of the factors that positively affect people’s emotional life at work among
the employees of both groups is presented in Table 1, which also provides a comparison with
the findings of previous research carried out in South Korea. From the data presented in
Table 1 some differences related with employees’ working life quality in Korea and Lithuania
can be noticed. It is conditioned by different level of economical prosperity as well as cultural

329
differences in these countries. Table 1 demonstrates that for the target groups of our research,
the most important factor was acknowledgement by superiors and colleagues. It was only
slightly more important for the office workers (64%) than for the freelancers (58%). It is
impressive that informal communication in the workplace is more important for freelancers
than to the office workers, even though the difference in the opinions is not substantial either.
Differently from the research conducted in 2009-2010, this research included a neutral variant
– a response ‘other’, which was selected by as much as 11 % of the freelancers (whereas the
office workers did not select it at all). It is possible to assert that there are certain other
specific factors, not included in the variants of the responses, and perhaps personal reasons
why freelancers experience affective job satisfaction. These might include a stronger sense of
vocation, creative nature, self-realization, or a deeper perception of one’s contribution to work
results in general. Table 1 also demonstrates that a mere 4 % of the freelancers responded that
they feel best in the workplace when they are unexpectedly offered incentives. Hence,
unexpected incentives, increments or bonuses were not the pivotal motivators for the
freelancers.
It is worthwhile comparing the findings of the latter research with the previously
conducted research into the quality of working life. According to the data of 2010, the
representatives of the organisations in Lithuania (a significant 43% of the respondents)
claimed that unexpected increments or bonuses were the principal factors which determined
affective job satisfaction. However, a mere 29 % of the respondents selected this response in
analogous research conducted in South Korea in 2009. On the one hand, this figure is
considerably lower than that of the Lithuanian respondents; on the other hand, it is
substantially higher than the findings of the 2012 research in Lithuania among the freelancers
and office workers. In the South Korean case, it is possible to assume that these differences
were determined by both cultural factors and perhaps different organisational management
styles, or deep-seated traditions.
Alternatively, the comparison of the findings in 2010 and 2012 among the office
employees also demonstrates rather substantial differences. The importance of the superiors’
presence in the workplace (which can be treated as supervision, control, certain restriction)
dramatically decreased, whereas the significance of informal communication for affective job
satisfaction increased. Furthermore, the acknowledgement of one’s achievements at work was
much more important in 2012 than in 2010, and among the office workers is even more
obvious (in 2010 – 39 %, in 2012 – already 64 %). In this way, the findings confirm the
shifting trends, and the changing evaluations of the workplace, the environment and the
positive affective microclimate in the workplace. This, naturally, should have impact on one’s
satisfaction with one’s working life, with one’s job in general and probably on the satisfaction
with one’s balance of work and personal life.
Table 1. The evaluation of the factors that have a positive impact on emotional life at work

LITHUANIA S. KOREA
In which situations do you feel best at work? 2012
2010 Freelancers Office staff 2009
When my work is valued and acknowledged by
my superiors (when my work is recognised) 39% 58% 64% 46%
When I unexpectedly receive an incentive (salary
increment, bonus) at work 43% 4% 16% 29%
When I can informally communicate at work with
colleagues I like 18% 24% 20% 9%
When my superior is away on business, when
s/he is not at work 16% 3% 0% 8%
Other - 11% 0% -

Source: author’s survey; Dahlgaard-Park, 2009

330
 The research exposed the fundamental differences between the natures of work of the two
groups. Freelancers are much more involved in their work, are more loyal to their selected
work activity, are committed to it not only in the working environment or during working
hours, but also after work. Freelancers are more able to perceive their contribution to the work
result, and they are more acutely aware that their job corresponds to their abilities. Moreover,
even though the freelancers’ incomes from their main workplace are often insufficient, they
experience the intention to quit less often – differently from office employees. In other words,
freelancers more often identify themselves with their work activities and do not draw a clear-
cut line between work and personal life, i.e., they lead the life that is popularly called a
“vocation”.
The proposed hypothesis that the different nature of work determines the differently
assessed balance of work and personal life proved to be only partially true. The pivotal
discovery of the research manifests itself in the divide of the subjective and objective
viewpoints. The different nature of work does determine the balance of work and personal life
(the objective point of view); however, practically, does not have any impact on the
evaluation of the BWPL by the researched groups of different nature of work (the subjective
point of view). The research revealed that irrespective of the respondents’ nature of work,
overall they are satisfied with their balance of work and personal life.
Bearing in mind that office workers as a category of employees probably reflect the major
part of working society (fixed working hours, a concretely established salary, clearly defined
duties and nature of work), it is possible to form a more general view and conclude that the
employees of the creative sector experience, in the researched aspect, graver deprivations and
tend to sacrifice their personal lives more than the majority of society does. This mainly
results from the inconstant, unstable, and insufficient incomes of freelancers. Nonetheless, as
the findings of the research demonstrated, freelancers are not overly demanding in terms of
personal life and its needs. This might be explained by finding a fulfilling ‘vocation’, the
different nature of creative people or their different perception of life, which as the research
revealed – differs substantially from the rest of society. Creative employees are much more
tolerant to excess workloads (overtime and doing additional jobs), or have fewer requirements
as to the quality of their personal life – which, naturally, suffers as a result of their work.

Conclusions

Nowadays, when human basic needs in our society are almost satisfied, questions on the
whole quality of life arise quite often. The key issue in such a situation is what the concept
itself is and moreover, it is not finally clear how to evaluate it in the best possible way. The
integrated evaluation of quality of life must include all the domains and components,
including quality of working life. The concept of quality of life is related to various factors of
working life, such as: job satisfaction, involvement in work performance, motivation,
efficiency, productivity, health, safety and welfare at work, stress, work load, burn-out, etc.
Quality of life is influenced by an individual’s physical and mental health, the degree of
independency, the social relationship with the environment, and other factors. Quality of life
could be defined as an individual’s satisfaction with his or her life dimensions compared with
his or her ideal life. The evaluation of quality of life depends on one’s value system. The
quality of working life could be defined as synthesis of the work place’s strategies, processes
and environment, which stimulates employee’s job satisfaction. It also depends on work
conditions and the efficiency of the organisation. The concept of quality of working life
encompasses the following factors: job satisfaction, involvement in work performance,

331
motivation, efficiency, productivity, health, safety and welfare at work, stress, work load,
burn-out, etc.
The model of quality of life was designed and it includes eight quality of life domains and
their factors. This model was used in the research. It revealed high efficiency of the applied
measures concerning the improvement of QWL. Although the material state of the employees
hadn’t changed significantly, the organisation’s investment into the training of employees,
concern for them and improvement of work conditions significantly raised the employees’
assessment of their emotional state, education and self-development, as well as safety. This
has a positive impact not only on the general QWL evaluation, but on QOL level as well.
The research findings demonstrate that the studied organisation has possibilities to increase
their employees’ quality of life and loyalty by improving working conditions and
environment. The high value of the quality of working life directly influences the higher
quality of life. The findings suggest that the designed research method is suitable for
evaluation of quality of working life and quality of life. It is possible to generalize that quality
of life and quality of working life can be managed, measured and evaluated.
The comparative leadership and working life study between organisations in South Korea
and Lithuania demonstrate some differences related to the employees’ working life quality
evaluation in these countries. It is conditioned by different level of economic prosperity as
well as cultural differences in these countries. Psychological microclimate is the main factor
influencing both employees’ satisfaction with job and loyalty for organisation. It is worth
highlighting that supervisor-leader is the most responsible for the quality of such
microclimate. Problems concerning relations with leader and colleagues as well as adequate
appreciation and evaluation of accomplished tasks are the major forces influencing working
life quality. It is important to accentuate that a monetary reward is not a critical factor
affecting employees’ satisfaction with their job in both countries – South Korea and
Lithuania.
The balance of work and personal life, when subjectively assessed by freelancers and
office workers themselves, is perceived as adequate and satisfying. In essence however, it is
not identical. The objective evaluation of the research findings reveals that the balance of
work and personal life of freelancers is distinctly worse than that of office workers.
Freelancers more often tend to do additional jobs, do overtime more frequently, and
consequently due to work, their family life, leisure time, entertainment, hobbies suffer more
than office workers’ respective facets of life. Nevertheless, all these negative factors are
perceived by freelancers as not weighty enough to have a negative impact on their own
perception of their balance of work and personal life.

References

Akranavičiūtė, D., Ruževičius, J. (2007). Quality of life and its components’ measurement.
Engineering Economics, Vol. 2, p. 43-48.
Arts, E. J., Kerksta, J., Van der Zee (2001). Quality of working life and workload in home
help. Nordic College of Caring Sciences, p. 12-22.
Brown J., Bowling A., Flynn T. (2004). Models of Quality of Life: A Taxonomy, Overview
and Systematic Review of the Literature. European Forum on Population Ageing Research.
Chung, M. Ch. (1997). A critique of the concept of quality of life. International Journal of
Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 10, No. 2, p. 80-84.
Considine, G., Callus R. (2002). The Quality of Work Life of Australian Employees – the
development of an index. University of Sydney.

332
Cummins, R. A. (2005). Moving from the quality of life concept to a theory. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 49, p. 699-706.
Dahlgaard-Park, S. M. (2009). Decoding the code of excellence – for achieving sustainable
excellence. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 5-29.
Diener, E., Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: economic, social, and subjective
indicators. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, p. 189-216.
Dooris M. (1999). Healthy Cities and Local Agenda 21: The UK Experiences – Challenges
for the New Millennium. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Internet:
http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/4/365.full (accessed: 25/01/2013).
Ferrer, A. (2004). Hapiness Quantified: A Satisfaction Calculate Approach. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gilgeous, V (1998). Manufacturing managers: their quality of working life. Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 9, p. 173-181.
James, G. (1992). Quality of Working Life and Total Management. International Journal of
Manpower, Vol.13, No. 1, p. 41-58.
Juniper, E. F. (2002). Can quality of life be quantified? Clinical and Experimental Allergy
Reviews, Vol. 2, p. 57-60.
Kajzar, P., Kozubkova, M. (2007). Quality of work life and job satisfaction. Life quality
conditions in societies basing on information: proceedings, Vol. II, p. 289-295.
Kazlauskaitė M., Rėklaitienė R. (2005). Vidutinio amžiaus Kauno gyventojų gyvenimo
kokybė [Quality of life of Kaunas city habitants]. Medicina, Vol. 41, No. 2, p. 155-161.
McCall, S. (2005). Quality of life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Merkys, G., Brazienė, R., Kondrotaitė, G. (2008). Subjektyvi gyvenimo kokybė kaip
socialinis indikatorius: viešojo sektoriaus kontekstas [Subjective quality of life as a social
indicator]. Viešoji politika ir administravimas, Vol. 23, p. 23-38.
Olfert, S. (2005): Quality of life leisure indicators. Community–University Institute for Social
Research.
Pichler. F. (2009). Determinants of Work-life Balance: Shortcomings in the Contemporary
Measurement of WLB in Large-scale Surveys. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 92, No. 3,
p. 449-469.
Quality of living worldwide city ranking – Mercer survey 2012. Internet:
http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/quality-of-living-report-2012 (accessed:
25/01/2014).
Rode, J. C., Rehg, M. T., Near, J. P., Underhill J. R., (2007). The Effect of Work/Family
Conflict on Intention to Quit: The Mediating Roles of Job and Life Satisfaction. Applied
Research on Quality of Life, Vol. 2, No. 2, p. 65-82.
Ruževičius, J. (2010). Globalizarea oi calitatea. Quality-Access to Success, Vol. 1-2, p. 10-
21.
Ruževičius, J. (2012). Management de la qualité. Notion globale et recherche en la matière.
Vilnius: Maison d’éditions Akademinė leidyba. 432 p.
Schoepke, J., Hoonakker, P., Carayon, P (2003): Quality of working life among women and
men in the information technology workforce. In.: Proceedings of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, Baltimore, p. 1379-1383.
Scoring the Quality of Life Profile (2003). Toronto: University of Toronto.
Shin, D. (1979). The concept of quality of life and the evaluation of developmental effort.
Comparative politics, Vol. 2, p. 299-304.
Sirgy, M. J., Efraty, D., Spiegel, Ph, Lee, D. (2001). A new measure of work life (QWL)
based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 55, p.
21-32.

333
 Susnienė, D., Jurkauskas, A. (2009). The concepts of quality of life and happiness –
correlation and differences. Engineering Economics, Vol. 3, p.58-66.
The Economist. Intelligence Unit’s Quality-of-life Index (2005). Internet :
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/QUALITY_OF_LIFE.pdf (accessed: 15/01/2013).
Van de Looij, F., Benders, J (1995). Not just money: quality of working life as employment
strategy. Health Manpower Management, Vol. 21, p. 27-33.
Veenhoven R. (2000) The Four Qualities of Life: Ordering Concepts and Measures of the
Good Life. Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 1, p. 1-39.

334

View publication stats